Zoning Meeting's Legality Questioned In Bethlehem Twp.

May 30, 1986|by TIM DARRAGH, The Morning Call

The Bethlehem Township Zoning Hearing Board Wednesday night ruled on three appeals, including one appeal to allow construction of a mini-mall near Routes 191 and 22, although there was some confusion as to whether the meeting was legally advertised.

The meeting was advertised May 23 among the legal advertisements in The Globe-Times, a Bethlehem newspaper. But, instead of listing the three appeals for Wednesday's regular meeting for May, the legal advertisement included the three appeals heard in the April meeting.

The advertisement did list the correct date and time. For the May meeting, the time was moved up 30 minutes earlier than the April meeting.

Zoning Secretary Bruce Trout said he believes the meeting still was held legally. He said state law has no definite specifications regarding the public advertising of meetings.

"We're not happy about it, let's put it that way," he said.

He said the township did send a proper advertisement to The Globe-Times and followed general township policy by sending it no earlier than two weeks before and no later than five days before the meeting was held.

Further, Trout said, the township did send notifications to anyone who owns property within 300 feet of the properties for which the board heard appeals Wednesday.

"We do that as a courtesy," Trout said. "No state or local law actually compels us to do that."

In addition, he said the zoners do not have any responsibility for typographical errors.

The advertisement, Trout said, probably was not placed in any other newspaper.

A Globe-Times employee who works with legal advertisements in the classified advertising section said yesterday she could not determine what happened with the legal notice until she talks with typesetters.

Attempts to reach Larry Fox, theboard solicitor, were not successful. Township solicitor and former zoning hearing board solicitor Frank Danyi also could not be reached.

Zoners did issue three rulings.

They denied an appeal from Joseph A. Negrao, 224 Brentwood Ave., who sought to develop a mall for shops and professional offices on a 3.8-acre lot near the intersection of Routes 191 and 22, Trout said. The property is divided by the Monocacy Creek.

Negrao sought variances from use and front-yard setback regulations, and permission for an oversize, 48-by-14-foot billboard. Setback is the distance a structure must be from a property line or another structure.

Also denied was an appeal to operate a lawn-care business office and storage area at 3224 Easton Ave. The appeal, filed by Ernest Martin of 1825 Watkins St., needed variances from lot size, use and side-yard setback requirements, Trout said.

Finally, zoners did approve an appeal by Mary Lou Anderson, 1434 Lindbergh Road. Anderson proposed to operate a day-care center in her home for no more than six children, Trout said.

She also said she is in the process of obtaining a license to run the center.